(1) Top of the Food Chain: David Cameron = PM Office of Power

At the top of the food web is David Cameron, The Great White Shark, with a huge huge huge Prestige Base flowing downwards far larger in magnitude than anything else both absolutely and in proportional ratio of dispersal of prestige further down the food chain.

Dr. RAE North has being making this effect explicit for sustained number of blogs, in particular: EU Referendum: the role of prestige. The ability to recommend via Government and via Statesmanship with the EU and other major institutions and other European leaders and through various meetings shape the conditions of the vote is without equal.

(2) Legacy News-Media has a vast number of connections

What is noticeable, is that the channels of communication (their tentacles in the top diagram) of this Referendum are pivotal to the outcome of the vote. Groups can only influence other groups to influence yet further groups via the channels of communication available to them, their exposure.

(3) The Electorate/Public are many LAYERS down the Prestige Food Web

Looking at Polls, the randomness of them in conjunction to general public sentiment, the obsession of the politicians with Big Data Mining of people's information, the rarity of Referendums in the UK and indeed voting on Major Treaties to do with the EU, the public are treated as political problem to be avoided as much as possible. Given the failure of the Legacy News-Media to educate at the same time as the opportunity of the public to set up their own blogs for other people and organize the information from other groups such as Think Tanks, papers published by the HM Government, by the EU or indeed the vast range of Global Bodies (UNECE, EFTA, Codex Alimentarius, WTO, G20, etc etc) as well as Political Parties, there exists an opportunity to directly communicate structured information via the internet to voters for this Popular Referendum.

The Referendum is when the politicians have failed to resolve a question of politics which continues to damage their legitimacy and hence must pose the question directly to the public. More information on Referendums as per Direct/Real Democracy: How They Do It In Switzerland by Campaign For An Independent Britain.

(4) The LEVELS of Prestige at which each group functions prohibits public education

It seems to me that blogs are exposing this, along with Twitter; leading to Technological Disruption to the old order. Some clear examples of these clashes:-

Is highly accessible. If I was from a Journalist post or a Think Tank, doing my research in this area, I would have found this video and compared it to many else besides for example these "Brexit" presentations list: Alternatives to EU Membership Conference 2015 - 16 videos and even the Brexit IEA shortlist from another "Think Tank" and developed a full picture of the state of the art of Brexit. But the Fallacy of Omission is employed via the tools of Prestige.

(5) The Higher The LEVEL of Prestige operating the more compromised the communication

A very good example of this is our Prime Minister, David Cameron or indeed the many eminent high status personages we met in The Columbo Method: Norway. Dr. RAE North records David Cameron's words here EU Referendum: in the deadly grip of "Europe" which is increasing beginning to hark back to one Tony Blair and the national sense of betrayal over The Iraq War. But then this is decades old as we've also discovered written in the history of the EU in The Great Deception, which continues to be largely ignored, apart from the very rare gleam of light, "AN OPTIMISTIC VISION OF A POST-EU UNITED KINGDOM" - Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP through the self-made miasma of confusion created by the interrelation and interactions of the different layers of prestige per group per level. This insistence not to form a researched basis or common ground for argument over the perceived problem of EU Membership continues to add more layers of deception over the original ones, decades ago by such as Edward Heath.

(6) Party Politics & Think Tanks, News-Media & Campaigns tend to be compromised by each other

The curiosity this food web of prestige is made clear in a number of blogs by The Boiling Frog:

When we do get Think Tanks that hover nearer to a more "impartial" picture of Brexit as per The Adam Smith Institute"What exactly is the case for Brexit?" they seem too partial to their own filters and could simply refer for a much clearer and "on the pulse" picture from a "mere blogger" as Lost Leonardo provides: The Story So Far...

Perhaps for a Referendum one of the worst forms of negative bias is the "tribal identity politics" such as discussed by both White Wednesday and The Brexit Door respectively, dragging everyone else down to their low quality argument zones as per Argument Abstraction, respectively:-

This problem is easily magnified when for example a Twitter a/c with a handle that contains all the costume of "eurosceptic" retweets sources that are compromised by this food web that confuse, deceive and play according to the rules of prestige not real information quality and no wonder Pete North blogs Fun while it lasted concerning the "damaged goods" that is all three of the present Referendum Campaigns (Vote Leave, Leave.EU and BSE):-

LeaveEU is evidently passionate about leaving but I've yet to come across an Economist EU/Brexit article that was not deeply compromised... and the "decoy" starts drawing other "birds of a feather" in.

(7) The Structure of the Polical "Food Web" suggests a Top-Down Political Reality...

For me I can't do better than suggest despite the slight tendentious diagram construction, that better communication will lead to better relationships which requires systematic reformation of our politics closer towards people:-

Saturday, 12 December 2015

So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish is the famous line and book from British sci-fi writer, Douglas Adams, a comedy of sorts. Unfortunately the story of Britain's Fisheries is a tragedy. The original campaign Save Britain's Fish to remove the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) failed to save Britain's fish and indeed it's industry and hence the new campaign is now to "RESTORE" (Restore Britain's Fish) it from this politically inflicted disaster both on the industry and the natural resource that make up both sides of the Fisheries of Britain.

"There is no question of Britain losing essential national sovereignty; what is proposed is a sharing and an enlargement of individual national sovereignties in the economic interest."

Under "Fisheries":-

"The Government is determined to secure proper safeguards for the British fishing industry. The Community has recognised the need to change its fisheries policy for an enlarged Community of Ten, particularly in regard to access to fishing grounds."

Britain's Fisheries: An expendable political chip

We compare the above communication to the people with the politicians negotiations on 30th June, 1970:-

"Furthermore, there was already international pressure for a major revision of the international law of the sea, to extend national control of fisheries to 200 miles (or the ‘median line’ between two nations). When this took place, the waters of the four applicants would contain well over 90 percent of western Europe’s fish, some 80 percent of the total in seas controlled by Britain."

These were the conditions for Britain. The condition for the EEC (as the EU was called then).

To quote John Ashworth at Campaign For An Independent Britain(Who
is lead campaigner of both Save Britain's Fish in the 1990's and now
again in the new campaign in conjunction with persons from the fishing
industry and ancillary industries from all coastal areas from Cornwall
to Shetland and Northern Ireland.):-

"Coming back to Britain’s Accession, the original six members, hours before the signed application for membership from the four was handed in, created Fisheries regulation 2140/70, which contained:"

The above shows Article 2 of the regulation as well as quote from Judgment of the Court, Cornelis Kramer and Others, Joined Cases 3, 4 and 6/76 (14 July 1976) with interpretation of the description of this Regulation within contention between "High Seas" vs "Sovereign Coastal Waters". It suggests that under the EEC/EU nations held 12-mile rights but under Article 2 gave up the full 200-miles rights to the community (number of members with equal rights to these British Sovereign Waters).

Coming back to The Great Deception, it is recorded how various different approaches to finding a legal basis to the Treaty to enact "equal access to all members" was sought via numerous convoluted and tenuous possibilities within the existing Treaties, going back so as to The Treaty of Rome. Effectively the "fingerprints of such actions recorded" gave away the intention/motive of this regulation at it's inception:-

"On the basis of this evaluation, it was evident that the Treaty offered no justification for what was clearly being considered, and therefore any regulation enacting it would a legal base. Nevertheless, a regulation was drafted to define the ‘equal access’ principle, with the intention of placing it in the acquis before the four would-be entrants lodged their applications. It would then have to be accepted by them, without argument. By any measure or description, this was a trap, aimed at appropriating the applicants’ property in order to share it between the Community members." ~ The Great Deception, Christopher Booker and Richard North, p.180

"The figures themselves told the story. In 1972, a total of 939,800 tons was landed by British vessels, compared with 145,850 tons landed by foreign vessels. Vessel numbers were then not accurately recorded (and nor indeed was the entire UK catch). But in 1995, we know that 9,200 fishing vessels landed 912,000 tonnes of fish– not a great difference, but then the CFP was only just beginning to bite."

"In 2002, however, after Commission effects to reduce the fishing effort, there were only 7,578 vessels, which landed 686,000 tonnes – a 25 percent reduction in catches over eight years."

"By 2012, the UK fleet had dropped to 6,406 vessels, comprising 5,032 ten-metre and under vessels and 1,374 over ten-metre vessels. Landings dropped to 627,000 tonnes, with a value of £770 million. But the real contrast came with the imports. In the same year, these reached 638,410 tonnes, valued at £2.6bn. Of that, £797 million came from the EU-27, a significant proportion of which were caught in UK waters."

"This provided a graphic illustration of the way the CFP worked. Access to fishing grounds had been dominated by political considerations, on the basis of "equal access" to what was defined as a "common resource"."

Common Fisheries Policy (CFP): Interpreting "Dolphin" for "Good-bye!"

This has been a tragic story; much like the self-inflicted EURO. But the story continues from John Ashworth is writing a weekly blog on this subject starting with The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 1 and continuing each Monday over the next few weeks at Campaign For An Independent Britain. If I've made any factual errors, please let me know: It's a very interesting area of the EU debate, which is hopefully conveyed in the above introductory (background) summary above.

The promises to people by the politicians motioning to join the EEC/EURO/EU or whatever next, have been proven to be great deceptions based on super-political logic that have damaged people's lives, damaged resources and damaged industries, we could end by saying, with respect to Fisheries:-

Thursday, 10 December 2015

A Slip Of The Tongue I noticed on BBC's Newsnight, a number of times, comes up during the subject of "Europe". People can't help slipping into:-

"When I Go To Europe..." or "On the Continent."

Both Pro-EU and Pro-Brexit speakers make these slips of the tongue before being corrected by David Dimblebee: "We are in Europe." And there's nothing exceptional about this common mental model of our place in the world: Britain is a geographical island in the North Atlantic, off the coast of "mainland Europe".

Especially vigorously so from Caroline Flint MP (Labour), which was considered in a scorecard style of communication previously:-

One of the core concepts I've promulgated from the very start of this blog is "quality of argument" in particular arguing the central point where it can be established. Another approach is engaging the arguments of the "other side" and a strong way of showing this engagement is to "Speak Their Language" as well as offer the suggestion of alternative conceptual models of understanding.

"By contrast, the very latest count of the EU laws in force (today) stands at 23,076. As a percentage of that number, the EEA acquis of 4,957
acts currently stands at 21 percent. In effect, the EEA (and thus
Norway) only has to adopt one in five of all EU laws – not the
three-quarters that is claimed."

This is hard evidence. As such in any popular debate there's no opinion: It's factual and quantitatively asserted. Onto the actual regulations: Making and Shaping again this was somewhat covered previously.

1. Norway does not have a seat in the EU Institutions with representation to vote on legislative process. However the UK only has:-

29/352 votes 8% in the Council of Ministers (requiring q.maj: 252, ~74%)

Of 73 MEPs in EU Parlliament (9.7%) they do not vote as a block to reach 376/751 for a majority

According to Dr. North: x30 more legislation by-passes the above normal legislation process in any case "delegated legislation".

More and more legislation has it's origins at "Global Level" via "international standards bodies"

"A very
substantial amount of that law originates with higher bodies, from UNECE
to Codex and points south. Of the 6,000 or so laws in the Single Market
acquis, potentially 80 percent are of international origin. The rest of the acquis
also has international input, which means that a substantial proportion
of the so-called "EU laws" would remain in force even if we left the
EU."

"Alongside Norway and other EFTA/EEA members, Britain resumes its place on global and regional "top-tables", and would be able to argue its own positions."

"When it comes to a vote, if the UK objects to a measure, it can either veto proposed standards or opt out of them. A 27-member EU, once the UK left, would cast as many votes on international councils (see above diagram!), but would have only one veto - giving the UK an exact equivalence with the EU."

"[...] Only if proposals get past this filter, and then have a mutually accepted Single Market relevance, would Britain - as an EEA member - have to consider adopting them. Even then, the States can also refuse to adopt EU law that they consider against their national interests."

Robert Oulds: Chapter 3: A Question Of Influence, p.60

The above also avoids the referal to the ECJ for resolution. Again another side of the coin is EU influence according to it's objectives of Ever Closer Union and increasing members requiring diluting of total percentage per member nation, and her Robert Oulds book helps when we consider that the British Government and in particular MEP's are often Pro-Integration measures and Pro-EU over National Self-Interest, a particular exemplar being the British Commissoner role's oaths to the EU.I would argue that citizens influence is very low input too in the EU limited to EU Elections and rejected in Major New Treaties!

EFTA/EEA: Free Trade Deals

Norway has a half-in, half-out relationship that gives it free trade with Europe but keeps it out of the EU‘s political institutions. Jonathan Lindsell in a Civitas report New study – the Norwegian model is a viable Brexit option looks at The Norway Option and EFTA/EEA rules on Trade Policy:-

Again the argument would seem to fall down if the UK joined the EFTA/EEA group this would as per FLEXCIT create the 4th largest trade group in the world which would seem to indicate that any talk of requiring to be in a "large club" apart from being highly contentious as per Lindsell's report highly likely to be a redundant argument!

FLEXCIT: 4.3 The "off-the-shelf" Market Solution ~ Dr. RAE North

What should be most satisfactory about the above status and relationship of the UK is that this is what was offered in 1975 as per the wording of the Referendum specifying "Common Market" membership in the EEC.This has not only the virtue of delivering that which was requested, but also denying the opportunity for further Great Deception by politicians with the stipulation of "ZERO" Political Representation in the EU Political Institutions amounting to 100% TRUST in our Trade dealings with the EU and other equal partners.Dr. North reveals the tortured history of the EU "what could have been..." discussing an alternative vision for the EU + EEA members in FLEXCIT: Background to the EEA, p.76 once again:-"The President's vision, at the time, was a of a European village", in which he saw a house called the "European Community." [...] What is so relevant to the current debate is that, at this point, the Community (now EU) was seen by Delors as one "house" in a village, alongside the EFTA "house", with which decision-making could be shared."

EFTA/EEA Cost To Single Market

"On the other hand, in 2014, the UK gross contributions
to the EU were £19.2bn, less £4.9bn rebate. That gives an equivalent
gross payment of £14.3bn. After rebates and other receipts, our net
contribution was £9.8 bn.

"With a population of 64 million, that puts our gross contribution
(without rebate) at £300 per head, our equivalent gross payment at £223
per head, and our net per capita payment £153 per annum – more than twice the Norwegian payments"

Quoting FLEXCIT for the equivalent cost of Single Market for the UK in the EFTA/EEA arrangement:-

"Budgetary costs attributed to EFTA run to 22,360,000 Swiss Francs (about £16 million), of which 55 percent is borne by Norway. This includes categories defined as EEA related activities, EFTA/EU statistical co-operation and EU/EFTA cooperation programmes. That, strictly, is the cost of Single Market.

"Access which, on a pro-rata basis, would cost the UK less than £200 million per annum."

EFTA/EEA Migration (Immigration)

"Funnily enough, this would be very similar to Articles 112-3 of the EEA Agreement, the so-called "Safeguard Measures"
which permit EFTA states unilaterally to take "appropriate measures" if
serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectoral
or regional nature arise and are liable to persist."

"In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in which a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state."

"Prepare yourself for the long haul; there will be no early referendum. The timetable was set out last June in the Five Presidents’ Report. The process of treaty change will begin in 2017 and will look to create a two-tier EU,
it is on the basis of that treaty that David Cameron will present
Britain with it’s “reformed Europe” and “British model” of membership."

"Despite this reality having been apparent for quite some time the
media are still making up rubbish about an early referendum, demands
being made, rebuffed and backtracked on and generally muddying the
waters."

What all the above are really illustrating in total combination is this point (pun intended): The Central Argument not being argued means the quality of argument suffers; which Pete North points out in direct relation to both Leave Campaigns in Fun While It Lasted. It does mean more waffle to fill columns, more "controversy generation" for the legacy news-media. An example of a news-story that caught my eye in particular illustrating this:-

Glamour, Controversy, Accusations, Counter-Accusations: Purr-fect!

I can't see too many downsides to this story: The BBC gets splash coverage of Strictly Come Dancing (which is quite an enjoyable musical-dance show imo), Ola Jordan gets some publicity perhaps for her subsequent act and the news-media are delivered a news-story with all the elements of interest, in particular Ola Jordan herself, a consummately, professional dancer and alluring screen presence rolled into one.

Sometimes I don't really mind these sorts of stories, I think I "get" what is going on and I remember when the above lady won Strictly Come Dancing with Chris Hollins, demonstrating a huge degree of professional pride when they both won demonstrating two really wonderful emotions we all enjoy seeing on our screens (Reference: Raph Koster, A Theory of Fun):-

Fiero = The expression of triumph when you have achieved a significant task (pumping your fist, for example).

Naches = The feeling you get when someone you mentor succeeds (professional pride)

In particular, Strictly Come Dancing demonstrates the second emotion very well in my opinion and it's great to see.

However such Sound And The Fury when it comes to Politics, an area where perhaps less pleasure should be mixed with business, we end up with:-

It's barely entertaining, in fact as per above it's "tedious and boring" which are deadly to democracy.

"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." ~ William Shakespeare, Macbeth Act 5, scene 5, 19–28

As we can see, most people are attracted to controversy, as per Robert Cialdini, strong social relations pressures drive us to act in ways that influence us far more than we're really ready to admit and the result is the battle between people climbing the social ladder to dominate and those falling down the ladder into submission, for every Naches there's Schadenfreude at seeing our competitors or rivals fall off the ladder (!). If you notice a lot of those google news stories have "David Cameron" at the top: He must be very very important to our societies very survival and well-being to hold such media exposure and talk around him?

And this is the problem: This is not entertainment but very serious for millions of people yet here we are with this soap-drama scrutinizing the emotions on David Cameron's face; all that is going on is the Dominance-Submission relationship as per Legitimacy & Listening. But there we learnt that this is built from Authority Influence (see Cialdini: The "expert" in the white coat selling you toothpaste on the television advert (who is in fact an actor picked for his "chemistry appeal" again Cialdini) which itself is derived from The Office of Prime Minister which is based on 3 levels of Legitimacy:-

Cognitive

Moral

Pragmatic

How do we lose the Referendum? By ensuring that authority is perceived in the public debate only through David Cameron. This is presently operating.

The sound of a tiny drop of water dropping into an ocean.

How do we win the Referendum? By questioning that authority against expertise and real knowledge that is communicated from a source of authority based off that cognitive legitimacy that is tranmitted either through or around the legacy news-media. The more it can be shown/revealed that Cameron's legitimacy is deeply compromised by The Great Deception and vica-versa the more cognitive legitimacy is amplified from a source of authority in public, open communication, the greater the public will make their verdict on the EU Referendum on the value of David Cameron to our society vs the damage to our society he is perceived to be causing and continuing via his domination of the Popular Referendum.

Leave Campaign: A source of cognitive legitimacy

We have this referendum because our politicians made a huge mistake they have not admitted to and have after >40yrs admitted they cannot resolve legitimately without the people signing up to "What Next?": How about politicians being forced to listen instead of making so much wasteful noise for once? As per LeaveHQ: Why We Must Leave?

Wednesday, 9 December 2015

I am very cynical of advertising; a particularly good area of research on sales techniques is Robert Cialdini's The Art of Influence, so much so GCHQ as part of it's online influence training/methods referenced this work iirc. Effectively the above is attempting to ensure their brand is remembered by you when you're shopping and swamped by choices of which "butter" to buy, you may have a tendencies to pick the brand on familiarity simply due to a default and low requirement to think about such a trivial choice.

The above I remember because it had a very annoying "Ear Worm Catch-Phrase" but also for me, margerine tastes nothing like butter! Where one tastes "organic" in the way vegetables or meat taste "organic", margerine tastes synthetic. Evidently it sells very well, perhaps due to "low fat" branding and "easily spreadable properties" so it has it's place and I'm not knocking it as a poor quality product, just that it's an imitation butter and I'd personally prefer be labelled as such:-

"is an imitation butter spread used for spreading, baking, and cooking. It was originally created from beef tallow and skimmed milk in 1869 in France by Hippolyte Mège-Mouriès, as a result of a challenge proposed by Emperor Napoleon III to create a substitute for butter for the armed forces and lower classes. It would later be named “margarine”.

Whereas butter is made from the butterfat of milk, modern margarine is made mainly of refined vegetable oil and water, and may also contain milk. In some locales it is colloquially referred to as "oleo", short for oleomargarine.

Margarine, like butter, consists of a water-in-fat emulsion, with tiny droplets of water dispersed uniformly throughout a fat phase which is in a stable crystalline form. In some jurisdictions margarine must have a minimum fat content of 80% to be labelled as such, the same as butter. Colloquially in the US, the term margarine is used to describe "non-dairy spreads" like Country Crock, and I Can't Believe It's Not Butter! with varying amounts of fat content."

What I'm trying to say here, is that advertising is the Art of the Plausible. As such there's a great deal of this in politics, where multiple viewpoints and values in modern secular societies are concerned. This may be "Popularity Politics", but it leads to an erosion of clear definitons and hence clear communication as per Communication: Shadows On The Wall (2) .

The stricter definitions of the words are:-

Possible > Plausible > Probable > Likely

But in politics it boils down between Plausible and Popular Sounding to gain "Vote Share" (in whatever context (people/politicians/nations/etc) vs politically possible within the rules of for example Treaty Laws and the wider interrelations such as Market forces and as well within some scope of popular acceptability. As the diagram above attempts to illustrate there's a widening divergence between the the art of selling a political proposition and the actual political "product" itself. Like the above "margerine" it may advertise itself as equivalent to butter but it is not defined as butter technically!

Brexit: When defined seems like a much less grand out-come than anticipated. But that's because it's merely the first step into a larger world.

To understand Brexit in terms of the difference between Plausibility and Possibility in Politics, FLEXCIT applies considerable definition of limitations ie demarcation between plausible and possible Brexit events and hence options. This is the grounding for The Market Solution:-

"Negotiators will have to deal with the political realities of the day, and be forced to respond to the demands and limitations imposed on them."

"Compromise will not so much be possible as inevitable."

"We do not consider that it is possible to resolve all the issues arising from forty years of political and economic integration in one set of talks, or one stage."

"Whilst we aver that it would be impossible to win a referendum with a plan which seeks to reject the EU's freedom of movement provisions.""Estimates cannot be any stronger than the validity of the assumptions on which they are based. Weak assumptions, lacking a sound evidential base or not rooted in the real world, are poor foundations for any plan. Dazzling predictive models and complex calculations cannot remedy inherent deficiencies."

"No solutions offered in respect of specifics are of any value unless they fit with others to make a fully integrated whole. There is no point defining any one policy area if the outcome creates irresolvable problems elsewhere. Partial solutions are not an answer. An exit strategy must work as a whole, providing the best fit over the entire policy domain – even if it requires adopting sub-optimal policies in some specific areas."

Advertising political propositions: Which is the more plausible product vs MORE importantly which is the most possible product?

No doubt David Cameron's Association Membership "British Model" will be "much better/butter" (sorry about the pun!) than all? Well no not if it's a lateral transition not a vertical transition in redefining our relationship with the EU:-

So feel free to read the more in-depth answers there. However, one of the important tasks of this EU/Referendum/Brexit debate is to organize information and increase understanding. A "war of words" or "wall of text" is an inhibitor to this outcome. So given the above use of conceptual understanding given above, to answer the questions in a way that presents the essence of A Science of Simplicity in which is asserted:-

Complexity = EU = Fragile = Deceptive

Simplicity = Brexit = Flexible = Trust

Where Brexit defined =

"Brexit (British Exit)" = “Withdrawal from the EU Political Treaties which grant representation of politicians in the EU political institutions and removal of such representation” - only – via triggering Article 50 Lisbon Treaty

Which means Brexit is merely x1 step, a single stage or Present Simple Event of change of Relationship Status of the UK with the EU qualitatively not quantitatively as component of FLEXCIT, the full process, itself. This incidentally is not wishful thinking: It mirrors the "Engrenage" and "negotiations" that are phantom of our Prime Minister David Cameron according to the EU Time-Table on Association Membership status (new relationship quantitatively not qualitatively) stretching from 2013-2017-2020+!

Here's the answer to British Influence. I've even appropriately organized the questions according to their categorization to help with clarity of understanding. What Brexiteers/Pro-Brexit Supporters need to do is understand that Brexit must be politically possible (which is much much smaller range of possibility than "politically plausible"), to then trigger democratic legitimacy and trump The Great Deception once and for all in Britain.

Sunday, 6 December 2015

"A gathering of people who have lived chained to the wall of a
cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows
projected on the wall from things passing in front of a fire behind
them, and they begin to give names to these shadows. The shadows are as
close as the prisoners get to viewing reality."

This is really so very applicable to the Legacy News-Media reporting that suffuses and smothers the knowledge and understanding of people concerning the twin-subjects of: The EU and Brexit (British Exit). What is reported is like the shadow above. It is derived, it matches what is visually, but it is not the same, and it reduces the potential increase in understanding that voters require to express their opinions freely in the Referendum on EU membership, which is likely in 2017, the first time since 1975: 45 years: Almost half a century of time. There's your "fire" that casts this shadow.

In the previous blog, Communication: Learning To Speak Dog (1), the Brexit article in Money Week was considered in the context of the type of communication we experience as part of the EU. I've tried to assert one core proposition concerning Brexit of the EU deals with the quality and type of communication we have a record of as members for 43yrs as almost as important as the assessment of the condition of our membership status vs Brexit status. In this blog this article in Money Week "Why we're backing Brexit" [subscription] (it could be Pro-EU or Pro-Brexit it does not matter) is the template, or "shadow on the wall" and I hope I am successful in showing in tandem the fire/flame simultaneously:-

"Our membership of the European Union (EU) is a subject that divides Britain."

The article references a recent poll, but the above is far more significant suggesting imo amnesia and lack of increase in public understanding (namely: temperamental ephemeral politics in action)

The EU suffers a "democratic deficit"... it is reactive rather than proactive... many question the future of the European project and the EU's drive for "ever closer union"."

Here's some essential concepts to appreciate:-

Robert Oulds in his book Everything You Wanted To Know About The EU - But were afraid to ask, mentions that the "democratic deficit" is no such thing: "trading democracy for dictatorship on the false prospectus that they would deliver prosperity" it was effectively a design to REDUCE democracy (mainly via Qualified Majority Voting QMV) and hence was intentional (eg x7 Major Treaties without a public Referendum in 45yrs!).

The reactionary consideration also requires a conceptual understanding of the above "how" the EU works as well as "Beneficial Crisis" of "Engrenage" requiring... you guessed yet more/another major new Treaty called by the politicians!

Finally the nature of the EU is not a question of how much more "Ever Closer Union" or reverting back to more of an Economic EU: As per The Great Deception history which is never referenced (!) the plan by Jean Monnet was always to avoid the mistakes of the League of Nations and have power over the nations ie Supranationalism which requires competencies of national policies ever closer to political union for example Monetary Union requiring Fiscal Union and centralized budget setting for the EU.

What do you think: Arrears of public voting on all those Treaties of "Ever Closer Union"

"The key difference is that the Ins believe we should try to reform the EU from within, rather than take the risk of leaving... the Outs see reform as impossible, and the risks of leaving as overstated."

The journalists favourite approach to Brexit is "biff-bam" categorization of the beliefs of two large equal but opposite groups/tribal colours. This is very very artificial: Defining what Brexit is properly clears up almost all the fun to be had here for the journalists:-

From this definition it is clear that the UK can use the 2 year period to renegotiate access to the Single Market devoid of the above political/legal status as a member SUB-/under EU Treaties compared with relationship EXTRA-/outside EU Treaties. Various routes to accessing The Single Market are described in Dr. RAE North's FLEXCIT document at EUReferendum.com under "The Market Solution". This changes the so-called polling groups above like "alchemy" into voting for

Single Market relationship with the EU vs Political Ever Closer Union + Single Market relationship with the EU.

Which is in which: Light and Darkness?

One of the core arguments against this are simply exercises in "bad relationship" which all people can understand: Coercion, Dominance-Submission, FUD for example. This is very important feature of the upcoming Referendum which empowers people "to speak to each, each according to their own understanding."

"In short, the status quo won't do - we need to reach a new deal that gives us more autonomy and a greater say in our own future."

Here the misconception is that the Status Quo is implicitly in stasis. The Status Quo of the EU is the inherent instability of the Treaties and this consequential political uncertainty. This word "Uncertainty" has been used as one of the key descriptions of the Prestigious VIP's who have advocated EU Membership since before Macmillan used it in the 1960's to state EEC "was causing uncertainty"! So too today, with a New Treaty being described as per A Fundamental Law Of The European Union. "...and this appears structural (a product of the eurozone's design) rather than cyclical (due to temporary unfavourable economic conditions)."This is where the article is on firm ground and seems confident of itself. It would be a useful addition to paraphrase Dr. RAE North and point out that these "structural flaws" are not so much a bug in the design of the Eurozone but a "feature" as per Beneficial Crisis for the completion of Sovereign policy powers to the ECB to include Fiscal with Monetary.

The lack of memory or consolidation of information in EU/Brexit articles: This graph is immensely useful visual aid of the Eurozone and the description of "Political Project" > Economic Project of the EU/EZ itself.

"It's worth noting on this point that we're far from alone in questioning our relationship with the EU. Finland's parliament will debate its membership of the euro next year."

"David Cameron - best described as a right-wing In vote - wrote to Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council with four demands."

The article is wasting space here: It has no bearing on Cameron, and by labelling him as "right-wing in vote" shows how poorly the EU is understood, let alone the empty Breadcrumbing of the above Theatre: The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast. we've discussed previously. Talking about Finland only reinforces the lack of historic context here and is anohter case of Politicians: No Taste, No Style, So Derivative! ie superficial indications being taken seriously; namely the article is in full "describing shadows" mode, at this point.

"The Ins both left and right-wing, see Britain as the bridge between Europe and the English-speaking world. The EU would be weaker without us, and the risks to us of leaving are too high, so why rock the boat? ... The Outs, on the other hand, come at the issue from the opposite end of the political spectrum. The Outs on the right cite right cite greater global trade, less regulation, and improved control over immigration... but they want to keep the free movement of capital goods and labour. The Outs on the left... they want to nationalize or subsidize industries... both... want our laws to be written in Britain, not Brussels."

Random Items Selection: "Macy has 7 apples, Brad has 5 pears and Emma has 11 oranges... How can they share them equally if..."

Apart from the perverse use of Out/In instead of Leave/Remain... the above is very interesting because having defined Brexit as a subjective of groups' disparate and effectively random desires/inclinations, a summary of the above is then used to define Brexit or EU Membership as per the groups. Interestingly such groups are labelled as very lacking in knowledge about the EU here Brits know less about the EU than anyone else ! Very likely the sort of stuff written as per this Money Week article to reshape that poor understanding and nudge it as per the polls graph since the 70's along with "cyclical events" such as the economy. Effectively the authors here are basing their arguments on shifting sands.

What do other non-EU European PEOPLE think of the EU?

"As for Norway - the nation held a referendum on joining the European Economic Community in 1972 and 53.5% of voters said "no". The Norwegian government dragged them into the European Economic Area regardless in 1994. That gives them 100% of the regulations and 0% of the say - hardly an enviable position."

I intend to go over the influence subject in this blog despite it already being covered numerously, particularly in FLEXCIT: 5.0 The Market versus the Swiss option p.88 and again in this blog: The Columbo Method: Norway

"Business for Britain (a right-wing Out group) has put together a detailed analysis of how a new trade deal with the EU could be pre-negotiated before any Brexit. The rest would quickly fall into place. Steve Baker, MP, head of Conservatives for Britain, notes that Britain is already a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Under these rules, Europe must offer us "most favoured nation" trading status. As a result, says Baker, "our membership of WTO defrays even the worst-case scenario of trade barriers being erected under WTO rules if we left."Oh dear, there's a lot by Dr. RAE North on this subject if they bothered to research as per google "eu referendum" coming in at No.1 Result then adding "+WTO":- EU exit: death of the WTO option? and Pete NorthWhose rules are they anyway? and again EU referendum: we the invisibles ; showing that the shadows are what are presented to the people, not the actual "flame". And more from Ruth Lea who is Globalisation: a conspiracy of silence?

"Ruth Lea – member of the advisory board for Business for Britain"

"More broadly speaking, global trade tariffs have been falling under globalization. Free trade benefits all involved, so it is in no one's interests to reverse that."

"In Short, the problem is that while the EU may have been built on free-market ideals, it is a long way from achieving those ideals. The regulatory burden and the European parliament's supremacy over national parliaments is unwelcome... that attitude is holding back the rest of Europe, particularly those countries locked into the the EURO. That's a great pity. But we don't have to remain a part of that... it is better than remaining in an unreformed EU."

It's difficult to tell whether the weasel is in the words or the wood is lost in the forest...

There's little to no conception of Globalization of Regulations! There's a lot of incomprehension as to the nature and definition of the EU and there's False Friend tone of voice about "Reform" and being moderate and sensible about Brexit if the EU does not reform. It makes no sense: These are the patterns on the wall for the public:-